tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 20 12:08:32 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tlhob mughwI' & KLBC
- From: "Mark J. Reed" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: tlhob mughwI' & KLBC
- Date: Mon, 20 May 96 15:08:26 EDT
- In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 20 May 1996 11:53:55 -0700. <[email protected]>
\ >> {vIHevDI', qastaHbogh poH'e', potlhbe'}
\ >The word order here is wrong... the thing that is not important, {poH}, is
\ >the subject, and thus comes after the verb {potlh}.
\
\ I didn't know, could you please explain why I couldn't use ",". Would
\ {vIHevDI', potlhbe' qastaHbogh poH'e'} be correct?
I didn't say you couldn't use ","; it's optional. Your sentence shifts the
emphasis so that the "being important" is taking place at the same time as
the "receiving", which is not the intent. Grammatically it looks fine to me
(but if you're going to start comparing translations, you should put a KLBC
in the subject and ask ghunchu'wI'. I'm only discussing this because it was
originally my sentence and I know what I meant to say. :))
\ \ >As far as we know, {-Daq} can refer only to a spatial relationship, not a
\ >temporal one.
\ I would just like to quote ghunchu'wI':
\
\ {-Daq} is a general-purpose
\ locative suffix, and can indicate position, destination, direction, or
\ other similar ideas."
Our esteemed Beginner's Grammarian is of course correct. Nor do I
disagree. {-Daq} is a general purpose *locative* suffix. It can
indicate position (in space), destination (in space), direction (in
space) or other similar ideas (about space) - but, so far as we know,
not any of those things with regard to *time*.
-marqoS
--
Mark J. Reed | http://www.sware.com
Email: [email protected] | HP Internet/System Security Lab
Voice: +1 404 315 6296 x158 | 2957 Clairmont Rd Suite 220
Fax : +1 404 315 6407 | Atlanta GA 30329-1647 USA